Posts Tagged ‘Zoo weekly’

Petition Creator Laura Pintur writes for Mamamia on Collective Shout’s campaign to get Zoo Weekly out of Coles and Woolworths.

Laura Pintur has started an online petition calling for lad’s magazine Zoo Weekly to be removed from supermarket shelves. Today, she writes for Mamamia about why she’s taking on a mag that is read by 36,000 boys aged 14-17.

I was so happy when I heard Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young had won her defamation case against Zoo Weekly. When I saw what they did to her, putting her head on a semi-naked bikini model’s body, I thought – how can they get away with that? Happily, they didn’t get away with it in Senator Hanson-Young’s case.

But every day they’re getting away with objectifying women, teaching boys to be predatory, encouraging sexual harassment and violence, spreading rape culture – all while calling it ‘humor’.

My friends and I don’t think it’s that funny to say to men and boys: “If the object of your affection is drinking, that’s already a point in your favour… you want to pick the “loosest/skankiest” one of the lot and fetch her a drink…separate her from the flock. You’re off alone, boozed-up and charming — these are three green lights!”

Giving men and boys the green light to assault women who are under the influence of alcohol is inciting them to commit a crime – when what we need to be doing is educating young men and boys about respectful relationships.

A recent Zoo column joked about punching your ‘misses’ in the face – and this kind of language is important. A 2011 UK study compared lads’ mags’ – including Zoo – and statements from convicted rapists. It found many people could not distinguish the source of the quotes.

Zoo Weekly uses the same language as rapists in its magazine. Sexually objectifying imagery and demeaning content feature on Zoo’s social media sites.

Zoo contributes to a culture that is hostile and threatening to women. It puts my friends and I in danger.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012 Personal Safety Survey found one in five Australian women over the age of 15 had experienced sexual violence. When big supermarkets like Coles and Woolworths sell Zoo it normalizes harmful attitudes to women. Zoo magazine is unrestricted, meaning there are no age restrictions on who can purchase the magazine. Zoo Weekly’s parent company, Bauer, has commissioned their own statistics that show 36,000 boys aged 14-17 read Zoo.

This is why I’ve started a campaign through Change.org, with the support of Collective Shout, calling on Coles and Woolworths to stop selling sexist Zoo Weekly. More than 37,000 people have now signed.

If Coles and Woolworths want to pride themselves on their corporate ethics and support for communities, why do they think it’s OK to profit from degrading women and girls?

I know there’s a lot more that has to be done. This is just one thing I felt I, as a 23-year-old woman could do. It’s my first campaign, the first time I’ve done media or spoken out. But I felt I had to do something.

I have seen first-hand the costs of what this magazine endorses, not only in my life but the lives of other young people. What chance does my generation, and those younger than me have when such major corporations help groom boys to treat us badly?

See also:

Lads’ mags, sexual violence, and the need for feminist intervention

Magazines such as Zoo not only reproduce and legitimise sexist and predatory views of sexual violence and gender roles. They also make such attitudes seem normal and acceptable.

Laura Pintur’s accusation that Zoo reproduces “rape culture” is particularly insightful because of the emphasis on cultural and socio-political contexts of these media texts. The implied understanding is that sexual violence is woven into the very fabric of our wider society and culture. Full article.

Lost Innocence: Why girls are having rough sex at 12

They know, or think they know, a few other things, too. That oral sex doesn’t count as sex. That sending nude pictures via text or Facebook is the new flirting. That boys their age watch porn regularly, and demand from their girlfriends the sexual menu they see online – hairless, surgically-enhanced bodies, ‘girl-on-girl action’, and much, much more.

They are learning from the 21st century’s version of sex education class, the internet…But these lessons are a dangerous mix of misinformation and distorted images of sexuality, which is contributing to behaviour that can leave young women with deep psychological and physical scars. Full article.

Collective Shout​ new recruit Laura Pintur, 23, has her first ever published piece: ‘Why I’m calling on Coles and Woolworths to dump Zoo magazine’ in Daily Life today. As signatures build to close to 10,000, Her campaign is being picked up all over the place. I also did a few radio interviews. This is just a small sample of the media this campaign attracted in the last 48 hours. Coles and Woolworths have not officially responded.

Why I am calling on Coles and Woolworths to ban Zoo Weekly from their shelves

Because of the stories I hear of young girls who are being pressured into sex as young as 12 or 13, the two women a week who die at the hands of their partners or ex partners, and the experiences of too many of my friends who are survivors of sexual abuse, I’ve decided to take a stand against companies that are normalising, encouraging and endorsing the mistreatment of women.

I’m 23 years-old. This is the first time I’ve taken action against national corporations. But I’ve had enough.

Almost every young woman I know experiences the daily reality of sexually harassing comments, cat-calling, inappropriate touching, comments about their bodies, pressure from boys for sexual images and questions about the sex acts they’re willing to do. We talk about it among ourselves and we all think it’s getting worse.

This week, I launched a petition on Change.org calling on our major supermarket chains, Coles and Woolworths, to bin this so called ‘lads mag’. Read more

Marketing coordinator for a non-profit organization, Laura Pintur, 23, has launched a Change.org petition directed at the CEO’s of Woolworths and Coles, Grant Obrian and John Durkan, calling on the big two supermarket chains to stop selling Zoo Weekly.

Ms Pintur said the so called ‘lads mag’ encouraged the sexual exploitation of women and girls.

“Zoo contributes to a culture that is hostile and threatening to women”,” she says.

The petition refers to a 2011 study comparing lads mags’ (including Zoo) and statements from convicted rapists. It found many people could not distinguish the source of the quotes.

“Zoo Weekly uses the same language as rapists in its magazines,” said Ms Pintur.

Zoo also gives tips to young readers on how to coerce drunk women into sex.

Sexually objectifying imagery and demeaning content feature on Zoo’s social media. This has included an image Zoo shared with its Facebook supporters of a woman’s body cut in two with the question, “Which half do you prefer?” Young readers described their various pornographic uses for the woman’s top half and/or her bottom half.

Zoo magazine is unrestricted, meaning there are no age restrictions on who can purchase the magazine. Bauer’s statistics indicate that 36,000 boys aged 14-17 read Zoo.

“Zoo teaches boys that women should submit to their demands. Do Coles and Woolworths, which pride themselves on their corporate ethics and support for communities, share this view? If not why spread it?” Ms Pintur said.

“I have seen and experienced first hand the detrimental costs of what this magazine endorses, not only in my life but the lives of other young people.

“What chance does my generation, and those younger than me have when such major corporations help groom boys to treat us badly?”

“It’s time for these company’s to stand up for the wellbeing of women and girls and against discrimination, harassment and violence.

How Zoo denied women value as equal people: an artist’s view

Artist Georgia Chisholm sent me this potent artwork she created, as her protest against Zoo and in support of our campaign. She writes:

The piece ‘Zoo Identity’ is a compilation of written descriptors of women taken directly from the March 2015 issue of Zoo Australia. I endeavoured to communicate the impact of zoo and its portrayal of females on my own identity formation as a young woman. The message purported by Zoo is that women are only good for one thing. I, like most other women, am constantly bombarded with images and words such as those depicted in Zoo, each time I visit the corner store, browse the internet or turn on the television. With so much media pressure devoted to women’s bodies and how we look as sex objects it has become so difficult to truly appreciate our personal worth as humans. I wholeheartedly support the removal of Zoo from Coles and Woolworths. I would be a step in the right direction towards removing a pervasive culture that denies women value as equal people within society.

Stop promoting rape culture! Bin Zoo mag.

I’m a 23 year-old woman trying to navigate my way around a culture that is surrounded with porn, sexualisation and objectification of women and enjoy healthy, respect-based relationships with men. But how is that possible when so many of them are being fed a diet of porn and violence including in magazines like Zoo Weekly read by thousands of boys every week?

I want this to change. Why should our major supermarket chains supply this magazine which promotes the abuse of women like me?

Boys can find advice like this:

“You think your girl’s so dewy­eyed she’s never sucked dick before? She knows how it works…. Is your girlfriend a bunny rabbit? A fragile rice­paper arrangement? No? Then how about you let her know she’s being f**ked?… she’ll like you taking charge like a real man.”

And:

‘If the object of your affection is drinking, that’s already a point in your favour… you want to pick the “loosest/skankiest” one of the lot and fetch her a drink…separate her from the flock. You’re off alone, boozed-up and charming — these are three green lights!’

Zoo Weekly recently came under fire, but not for publishing quotes like this one. It was recently forced to remove advertising for its ‘ANZAC commemorative edition‘ after the Department of Veteran Affairs threatened fines.

I was stunned at how quickly Zoo could be pulled into line on the ANZAC issue, while its abusive portrayal of women goes on with no action taken.

Where are the fines for the ongoing sexual exploitation of women and girls? Where is the punishment for contributing to a culture that is hostile and threatening to women? Where is the outrage?

Zoo Weekly is promoting attitudes that put women and girls at increased risk.

A study comparing lads’ mags (including Zoo) and statements from convicted rapists found that many people could not distinguish the source of the comments. That is, Zoo Weekly uses the same language as rapists in their magazine.

Other disturbing content from Zoo Weekly includes:

Tips for using alcohol to coerce women into unwanted sex.
Encouraging readers to send in pictures of their girlfriends breasts for a chance to win breast augmentation surgery.
Their 2012 Hottest Asylum Seeker competition, encouraging female asylum seekers to send in sexy pics.
Photoshopping the head of Greens Senator Sarah Hansen-Young onto the body of one of their half naked models after she refused to pose in their magazine.
Sharing a photo on their Facebook page of a woman’s body cut into two pieces, asking fans which half they would prefer and why (the responses from men were sick).
Sharing sexualised images of girls who appear underage on their Facebook page lifted from teen porn websites.

And all of this is classified as ‘men’s lifestyle’ – there are no age restrictions on who can purchase Zoo. Recent market data showed that 36,000 boys aged 14-17 are among its readership. The magazine openly states that “men” aged 16-40 are their core target.

Zoo brainwashes boys into believing that women must submit to their sexual demands, otherwise they aren’t ‘man’ enough. Zoo Weekly is promoting attitudes that put women and girls at increased risk. In Australia, violence against women has become a national emergency, with up to two women being murdered by their partners each week. Magazines like Zoo promote attitudes that lead to violence against women. They should have no place in supermarkets.

I have seen and experienced first hand the detrimental costs of what this magazine endorses not only in my life and the lives of other young people, and I want to see change.

What chance does my generation, the generations above me and the generation below me who are growing up and being brainwashed to believe what is endorsed in this magazine is normal and ok, actually have?

Zoo Weekly didn’t cross the line with Anzac Day, it crossed the line a long time ago. Condemnation of Zoo Weekly must extend to its sexual exploitation of women and its sick and predatory grooming of young boys too.

Coles and Woolworths, as our major supermarket chains you pride yourselves on being family stores with a strong commitment to community values. It’s time for you to stand up for the wellbeing of women and girls and against discrimination, harassment and violence. We need to take a stance and make it known that these issues are real and it’s only going to get worse if we as a society keep normalising it. Please stop profiting from selling Zoo and remove it from your stores immediately.

Laura Pintur is a 23-year-old Melbourne woman who got tired of seeing the sexist lad’s mag Zoo on the supermarket shelves. Though never having campaigned on anything before, she decided she had to take action. Please support her Change.org petition now!

Stop promoting rape culture! Bin Zoo mag.

I’m a 23 year-old woman trying to navigate my way around a culture that is surrounded with porn, sexualisation and objectification of women and enjoy healthy, respect-based relationships with men. But how is that possible when so many of them are being fed a diet of porn and violence including in magazines like Zoo Weekly read by thousands of boys every week?

I want this to change. Why should our major supermarket chains supply this magazine which promotes the abuse of women like me?

Boys can find advice like this:

“You think your girl’s so dewy­eyed she’s never sucked dick before? She knows how it works…. Is your girlfriend a bunny rabbit? A fragile rice­paper arrangement? No? Then how about you let her know she’s being f**ked?… she’ll like you taking charge like a real man.”

And:

‘If the object of your affection is drinking, that’s already a point in your favour… you want to pick the “loosest/skankiest” one of the lot and fetch her a drink…separate her from the flock. You’re off alone, boozed-up and charming — these are three green lights!’

Zoo Weekly recently came under fire, but not for publishing quotes like this one. It was recently forced to remove advertising for its ‘ANZAC commemorative edition‘ after the Department of Veteran Affairs threatened fines.

I was stunned at how quickly Zoo could be pulled into line on the ANZAC issue, while its abusive portrayal of women goes on with no action taken.

Where are the fines for the ongoing sexual exploitation of women and girls? Where is the punishment for contributing to a culture that is hostile and threatening to women? Where is the outrage?

Zoo Weekly is promoting attitudes that put women and girls at increased risk.

A study comparing lads’ mags (including Zoo) and statements from convicted rapists found that many people could not distinguish the source of the comments. That is, Zoo Weekly uses the same language as rapists in their magazine.

Other disturbing content from Zoo Weekly includes:

Tips for using alcohol to coerce women into unwanted sex.
Encouraging readers to send in pictures of their girlfriends breasts for a chance to win breast augmentation surgery.
Their 2012 Hottest Asylum Seeker competition, encouraging female asylum seekers to send in sexy pics.
Photoshopping the head of Greens Senator Sarah Hansen-Young onto the body of one of their half naked models after she refused to pose in their magazine.
Sharing a photo on their Facebook page of a woman’s body cut into two pieces, asking fans which half they would prefer and why (the responses from men were sick).
Sharing sexualised images of girls who appear underage on their Facebook page lifted from teen porn websites.

And all of this is classified as ‘men’s lifestyle’ – there are no age restrictions on who can purchase Zoo. Recent market data showed that 36,000 boys aged 14-17 are among its readership. The magazine openly states that “men” aged 16-40 are their core target.

Zoo brainwashes boys into believing that women must submit to their sexual demands, otherwise they aren’t ‘man’ enough. Zoo Weekly is promoting attitudes that put women and girls at increased risk. In Australia, violence against women has become a national emergency, with up to two women being murdered by their partners each week. Magazines like Zoo promote attitudes that lead to violence against women. They should have no place in supermarkets.

I have seen and experienced first hand the detrimental costs of what this magazine endorses not only in my life and the lives of other young people, and I want to see change.

What chance does my generation, the generations above me and the generation below me who are growing up and being brainwashed to believe what is endorsed in this magazine is normal and ok, actually have?

Zoo Weekly didn’t cross the line with Anzac Day, it crossed the line a long time ago. Condemnation of Zoo Weekly must extend to its sexual exploitation of women and its sick and predatory grooming of young boys too.

Coles and Woolworths, as our major supermarket chains you pride yourselves on being family stores with a strong commitment to community values. It’s time for you to stand up for the wellbeing of women and girls and against discrimination, harassment and violence. We need to take a stance and make it known that these issues are real and it’s only going to get worse if we as a society keep normalising it. Please stop profiting from selling Zoo and remove it from your stores immediately.

How Zoo grooms boys to see women and girls as objects: a short history

Zoo Weekly is an ‘unrestricted’ pornographic magazine. This means the classification board has determined that there should be no real age limit on who can buy these magazines. Complaints to classifications about pornographic content have been rejected, with the magazine being deemed as ‘mens lifestyle.’

Take the quiz Psychologists from Middlesex University and the University of Surrey found that when presented with descriptions of women taken from Lads Mags, and comments about women made by convicted rapists, most people who took part in the study could not distinguish the source of the quotes. Read more

Model Erin Pash adorns the cover and inside pages, holding a poppy, lying tummy down among poppies and reclining against old army posters on a page decorated with, you guessed it, poppies. All in a bikini (Gallipoli involved a beach, right?).

But Zoo is in official trouble, not for sexing up ANZAC day, but for using the word “ANZAC” on its Facebook page announcing today’s issue. There are laws against using the name for advertising – and fines of $50,000.

While Zoo has gotten away with sexism for years, it was only when using the word “ANZAC” that the “men’s lifestyle” mag stepped into line. Perhaps it was because the Department of Veterans’ Affairs demanded Zoo remove all references to ANZAC and the editors didn’t want to go to prison or pay a $51,000 fine.

While Zoo made the necessary changes to avoid offence for misusing the term ANZAC, they have failed to make changes on any other front.

Where is the outcry over Zoo‘s raw, unadulterated violence against women, its exploitation and degradation of women – which fuels the ongoing global war against women? Where are the threats of fines and prison for portraying women as dehumanised sex objects?

Zoo has depicted a woman chopped in half and ask readers – 28,000 of them boys aged 14-17, according to publisher Bauer Media – which half they prefer. The responses are unprintable.

In the “Ask Danny” section, men are encouraged to set fire to their girlfriend’s pubic hair if they haven’t waxed. Danny advises on treatment of an ex: “Cut her face so that nobody will want her.” Readers are also encouraged to take advantage of women who are drunk (which is a crime): “You want to pick the ‘loosest/skankiest’ one of the lot and fetch her a drink separate her from the flock. You’re off alone, boozed-up and charming – these are three green lights!”

On its Facebook page, Zoo shows pornified images of girls who appear underage, which they’ve lifted from “teen porn” sites. Readers point out girls are underage (“I remember seeing this in teen forums 5 years ago,” says Karlos Alexander) but are happy to ogle her anyway (“F—ing awesome tits nonetheless,” Karlos adds).

Zoo posts “Who do you prefer” pics where it invites Facebook users to rank photos of near naked women. It invites young female Facebook fans to send in sexualised images to be distributed in their magazines or online.

In July 2012, Zoo asked: “Are you Australia’s hottest asylum seeker?” Female asylum seekers who had “swapped persecution for sexiness” were encouraged to send in pictures. Zoo joked about “shooting” them with a camera. In Zoo world, even female survivors of human rights violations can be offered up as porny fantasy for readers. Hot refugee women for you to get off on! Brutalised beauties for your viewing pleasure!

Zoo‘s treatment of Australia’s first saint, Mary MacKillop, showed no woman was exempt from exploitation. A woman who devoted her life to the poor was celebrated with a model in a habit, and headings like “St Mary Mac and her holy rack” and “Mary’s heavenly hooters blessed by Pope.” She was presented on her knees “begging for it.”

Zoo Weekly is sold in service stations, newsagents, corner stores. Woolworths and Coles sell it too, apparently not caring that they are contributing to an intimidating, hostile, degrading, environment for women, including their own staff.

The persistent reduction of women to body parts is a form of discrimination contributing to violence against them. Zoo spreads the idea that male sexuality is based on power and aggression and that women must be brought into line. Displaying lads’ mags in everyday spaces like supermarkets reinforces the message that treating women like frivolous sex-objects is normal and acceptable.

Where are the governments and regulatory authorities who will step up and say you can’t treat women this way? Zoo Weekly was pulled into line for its demeaning exploitation of the ANZAC commemoration. Now can we do the same for women?

More misogyny from Zoo as Ad Standards Board ruling ignored

We’ve helped bring down Zoo weekly’s ‘hottest asylum seeker’ competition, made complaints to the Ad Standards Board about its sexist ads on Facebook and called on Coles and Woolworths supermarkets to stop selling the sexist mag. But Zoo refuses to change, ignoring a recent ruling from the Ad Standards Board that posts on their Facebook page were demeaning and discriminated against women.

One of the ads we complained about was an image of two halves of a woman with the question “left or right but you have to tell us how you came to that decision.” What followed was a series of misogynistic comments from Zoo readers. We also lodged complaints about an image comparing a woman’s body to a game console. An image of a woman’s bottom wearing underpants that say ‘Nintendo’ was accompanied by the question “What would you call this console?”

A quick scan through Zoo’s Facebook page demonstrates that nothing has changed, in fact Zoo is only getting worse. An article on Mumbrella describes in detail the behaviour of Zoo Weekly and its fans on Facebook:

It’s important to point out that Zoo magazine is an ‘unrestricted’ publication. This means that despite the sexist, pornified content and the advertising directing readers to hardcore content (see link here caution when opening) the magazine does not have an age restriction. Zoo’s own stats indicate that 28,000 young people aged 14-17 read the magazine each month. The magazine is widely available in supermarkets and service stations. Ads within the magazine urge readers to ‘like’ their Facebook page where they are served up more sexist and demeaning content.

We again call on Woolworths and Coles to stop selling a magazine that persists in demeaning women, women who make up both their staff and at least half of their customer base.

28000 – That’s the number of boys aged 14-17 estimated to read Zoo magazine each week. Despite its pornographic nature Zoo magazine is classified as ‘men’s lifestyle’ and therefore unrestricted – anyone can buy it. Zoo is conveniently positioned and priced for young readers to purchase in convenience stores, service stations and Coles and Woolworths. Zoo boasts that it is the largest selling ‘men’s magazine’ in Australia.

Another way Zoo magazine promotes itself is through Facebook. Zoo’s Facebook posts consist mainly of images of semi naked women and women’s body parts. Some of the images are from it’s ‘strip search’ promotion. This is where a Zoo representative approaches women on the street and invites them to strip down and be photographed for Zoo. “We hit the streets and somehow convince girls to get their kit off.”

Zoo features a full page advertisement for its Facebook page in the magazine – a photo of breasts in a bikini top and the text “Two reasons to like our Facebook page.” (image here – caution when opening) The ad promises “heaps more” for those who go ahead and ‘like’ the page using their smart phone. Zoo regularly posts images of women – or their body parts – on its Facebook page, asking the reader to choose which one they prefer. “Left or Right” is a regular feature on its Facebook page and Website.

“This week, Zoo magazine posted the following image on its Facebook page, asking the question “Left or right, but you’ve got to tell us how you got to that decision.”
The comments came rolling in, here are some (warning – highly offensive comments):

You can’t get much more sexually objectifying than to dissect women’s bodies and discuss which parts you would like to use or abuse. However, after Zoo magazine’s ‘hottest asylum seeker’ competition, in which refugees were invited to submit photos and explain why they have exchanged ‘persecution for sexiness’ not much surprises us anymore.

A scan through Zoo’s Facebook page shows that along with its ‘strip search’ promotion, Zoo also uses its Facebook page to solicit semi naked photos from women. Zoo invites Facebook fans to “Send hot pics of you and a Zoo” and provides an email address. These images are then shared with their Facebook fans which Zoo says reaches men from ‘teens all the way to their forties.’

With so much print and online material to choose from, you’d think readers would be satisfied. But Zoo knows that their readers want more, and are only too happy to point the way. Among their advertising, in each edition Zoo also promotes ‘unrestricted’ ‘explicit’ ‘hardcore’ ‘xxx’ telephone sex lines (for example “Misbehaving Girls Home Alone”, alongside a picture of a young looking woman with her hair in pigtails) along with other products of the sex industry products such as “oriental hardcore shows.” (Image of ads here and here, caution when opening)

Zoo magazine is sold at BP, Spar, Coles, Woolies. In fact it is sold in most major and independent grocery stores. Why do these stores allow themselves to be used to promote such obvious sexism and objectification? Guy Sigley from The World Tells Measked both Coles and Woolworths that question. He received responses from both, dodging the question and defending the magazine’s placement in stores.

Perhaps it is time for us all to ask Coles and Woolworths that question too.

Take Action!

Make a complaint to the Ad Standards Board about the way Zoo magazine advertises on its Facebook page (The Ad Standards Board now considers the content of Facebook pages, including comments from “fans”, to be a form of advertising and therefore subject to the Advertising Code of Ethics). Read more about that here.

Lad’s mag pretends to apologise

a written or spoken expression of one’s regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another

I find myself pondering the question: do the editors at Zoo Weekly Magazine understand what an apology is?

This week a Change.org petition, initiated by Collective Shout supporter Matt Darvas, a man who, with his family, cares passionately for refugees and is deeply engaged with refugee communities in Newcastle, NSW, resulted in an apology from Zoo for an appalling competition to find Australia’s sexiest boat person.

Zoo Weekly was asking female asylum seekers who had “swapped persecution for sexiness” to send in pictures — and joked about “shooting” them with a camera.

In the world of lad’s mags like Zoo, even female survivors of the most horrendous human rights violations on earth can be offered up as masturbatory material for its male readers. Hot refugee women for you to get off on! Brutalised beauties for your viewing pleasure!

“ZOO Weekly regrets any offence caused to any of our readers, and to any asylum seeker or refugee and their families and supporters. We apologise for being insensitive.” — Tim Keen, editor of Zoo Weekly

Mr Keen, editor of jerk-off weekly, said the apology was extended to Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

Zoo had tried to persuade the Senator to pose for the magazine, promising to host “the next boatload” of asylum seekers in its office is she did so. She said no. But no matter. The editors just photoshopped her head onto the body of a bikini model. Problem solved! No consent required!

Have the female editors and staff of these magazines, which claim to advance female equality, had anything to say about their stablemate’s treatment of female refugees and elected representatives. The condemnation should be loud and unequivocal.

Without any accountability to or discipline from ACP, Zoo continues to be enabled to continue this exploitative and sexist behavior.

The petition calling on ZOO magazine to apologise and scrap its ‘hottest asylum seeker competition’ accumulated over 6000 signatures. Change.org sent out the following email to petition supporters yesterday. Thanks to all who signed and shared the petition. You can read the original article here.

“ZOO Weekly regrets any offence caused to any of our readers, and to any asylum seeker or refugee and their families and supporters. We apologise for being insensitive.” — Tim Keen, editor of Zoo Weekly

Wow, that was fast. Zoo Weekly’s “hottest asylum seeker” competition didn’t even make it through the weekend. Less than 24 hours after Matt Darvas started his petition on Change.org, the editor Tim Keen called him personally — and promised to print a full apology in the next issue.

Matt is close friends with female refugees who have fled war, violence and sexual assault in their own countries, so he was appalled when he heard Zoo Weekly was asking female asylum seekers who had “swapped persecution for s-xiness” to send in pictures — and joking about “shooting” them with a camera.

So he decided to take a stand. You and more than 6,000 others joined him, and his campaign ignited a furore across the media and the general public. Media outlets from The Sydney Morning Herald to Yahoo! covered the campaign — it even gained international attention in The Guardian (UK).
With backlash growing by the hour, editor Tim Keen admitted that the traumatic experiences of asylum seekers were “too important for jokes,” and apologised to asylum seekers, their friends, family and supporters.

Matt says he’s disappointed that the competition happened at all. But he’s thrilled at the response: “A massive thank you and cheer to everyone who helped stop this disgusting and exploitative competition.”
Matt’s petition is just one of hundreds that are started on Change.org every day — and every day, people like him are making a difference on issues they care about. If there’s something you want to speak out about, it only takes a couple of minutes to create a petition — just click here to get started.

Thanks for being a part of this,
Bobbi and the Change.org team

P.S. Matt works alongside refugees and asylum seekers in his community every day, and he says there’s a lot more ordinary people can do to help fight for their rights in the Australian community. If you want to get more involved, you can:

2. Check out Matt’s blog, which follows his work to share the stories of asylum seekers and refugees in his community.

An apology is probably the best we can expect from ZOO magazine given its usual content so it’s great the petition achieved this aim. Well done to Matt Darvas for initiating the petition and taking a stand against the exploitation of asylum seeker women.

We do note that although the apology was extended to Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, they have not yet removed her image from ZOO’s website. ZOO magazine had pressured Senator Hanson-Young to pose for the magazine, saying they would host the ‘next boatload’ of asylum seekers in its office if she did. When she refused, they photoshopped her head onto the body of a lingerie model.

Collective Shout supporters are looking forward to the day when ZOO magazine folds. With plummeting sales figures, that time may be coming sooner rather than later. We will be watching carefully to see which companies choose to advertise with ZOO magazine.

‘The foremost authority in Australia cyber safety lays it on the line and challenges parents to find their digital spine.’ – Dr Michael Carr-Gregg

Whether it is problems with friends, worrying about how you look or just feeling a bit down in the dumps – these books are written especially for you – to help you in your journey. Purchase all four together and save $18.50 on postage! Author: Sharon Witt

In this DVD, Melinda takes us on a visual tour of popular culture. “Melinda’s presentation leaves audiences reeling. She delivers her message with a clarity and commonsense without peer.” – Steve Biddulph, author, Raising Boys, Raising Girls

In this easy-to-read updated book, Steve Biddulph shares powerful stories and give practical advice about every aspect of boyhood.

Men of Honour -written by Glen Gerreyn- encourages and inspires young men to take up the challenge to be honourable. Whether at school, in sport, at work or in relationships, we must develp our character to achieve success and experience the thrills life has on offer.

Purchase the Ruby Who? DVD and book together for only $35 saving 10% off the individual price.

“Getting Real contains a treasure trove of information and should be mandatory reading for all workers with young people in health, education and welfare” – Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, Adolescent Psychologist

Do you read women’s lifestyle magazines? Have you thought about how magazines might affect you when you read them? Faking It reflects the body of academic research on magazines, mass media, and the sexual objectification of women.

Ruby Who? is the sweet and innocent story of a little girl’s adventure in re-discovering her identity. Ruby wishes for so many things and dreams of being like others. Will she end up forgetting how to just be herself?

Ruby Who? is the sweet and innocent story of a little girl’s adventure in re-discovering her identity. Ruby wishes for so many things and dreams of being like others. Will she end up forgetting how to just be herself?

Defiant Birth challenges widespread medical, and often social aversion to less than perfect pregnancies or genetically different babies. It also features women with disabilities who were discouraged from becoming pregnant at all.